Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfkit]

The linux install on my laptop does NOT like the university wifi. Couldn't get it to connect even though I was using the correct settings, took it to the help desk, she couldn't find anything wrong with what I was doing but inexplicably it worked then.
Okay,  now that it's working I'll install the packages I need. Nope, it decides to disconnect halfway through downloading the first package and now won't stay connected for more than a second. Dammit I need this for paid research!
At least I've got ethernet in my dorm room.

[Solifuge]

Spoiler: Didn't mean to spark a derail (click to show/hide)

Let me just close off in saying that, to my knowledge, small social groups and civilizations ranging from tribes to remote countryside villages all have something in common, which tends to diminish when groups get too big for everyone to know everyone else personally. People in these communities do things for each other, help their neighbors out with problems, or borrow without the lender tracking debt. People do nice things for others, knowing that others would do the same. They are all in the same community, and benefit when each individual does well, as each personal success is a success shared by everyone.

That's the secret weapon humans evolved to use, along with other Eusocial critters on Earth; strength in community. Altruism on a societal scale is the nature of our species, as wild and natural as any other creature's tools for survival. And I'd argue that turning people and their time into a commodity, to help facilitate society on a provincial or continental scale, has undermined our evolutionary strength. When your neighbors are no longer an extension of the Society you are also a part of, but a resource or a means to be put toward an end by you or someone else, we start to lose the benefit that a civilization confers on its members.

Anyway, regarding:

-snip-

Thanks for the commiseration. Sharing it really is better than letting it fester, whether or not internet cookies/hugs/etc are involved. Still feel shitty, and at a bit of a loss for how to proceed in life, but that's one less stress. Got to find new tools that prevent this from happening again, without compromising who I am. I don't know where to start. There really isn't any other way except doing more of the same with new people, and hoping it's different, is there? Maybe trusting gut instinct when I get the sense that a relationship of any sort is a commodity exchange, and being generally more vigillant about what I'm doing for whom. Pausing to consider requests instead of defaulting to "yes" until I burn myself out. Something like that, anyway.

[Kadzar]

-snip-

Aw, Soli, dude
*hugs*

I had no idea. I assumed since you had been scarce on the forums in the past year or so that things were going well for you. If you ever want to talk, even if it's about nothing or nonsense, I'm here for you. My PM box is open, and I'll send you a message with other contact info.

[nenjin]

Spoiler: Didn't mean to spark a derail (click to show/hide)

Let me just close off in saying that, to my knowledge, small social groups and civilizations ranging from tribes to remote countryside villages all have something in common, which tends to diminish when groups get too big for everyone to know everyone else personally. People in these communities do things for each other, help their neighbors out with problems, or borrow without the lender tracking debt. People do nice things for others, knowing that others would do the same. They are all in the same community, and benefit when each individual does well, as each personal success is a success shared by everyone.

That's the secret weapon humans evolved to use, along with other Eusocial critters on Earth; strength in community. Altruism on a societal scale is the nature of our species, as wild and natural as any other creature's tools for survival. And I'd argue that turning people and their time into a commodity, to help facilitate society on a provincial or continental scale, has undermined our evolutionary strength. When your neighbors are no longer an extension of the Society you are also a part of, but a resource or a means to be put toward an end by you or someone else, we start to lose the benefit that a civilization confers on its members.

I can get behind that reasoning. Having to look the object of your altruism in the face or not does have a big impact on whether or not you feel the social obligation to help them. Still, I think there's a difference between altruism that essentially costs you nothing, and altruism that can cost you your well-being and survival. Things in the wild tend to come with costs, where simply being nice and friendly or offering something you don't truly need in the human world does not.

[Redzephyr01]

This made me rage today. I'm definitely never going to read gawker again.

[King Kravoka]

Ralph Hayes has officially pissed me off with his latest story, which reads almost like a science fiction Chick Tract.

[GiglameshDespair]

Ralph Hayes has officially pissed me off with his latest story, which reads almost like a science fiction Chick Tract.

Praise space jesus, ye heretic.

[hector13]

I never said that we were. You just managed to pull that out of 'I imagine that in the past...' somehow.

Apologies. My lack of sleep and desire to be mildly offended, apparently.

[KingofstarrySkies]

This made me rage today. I'm definitely never going to read gawker again.

I'm going to go crawl into a hole and pretend that people aren't that awful for once.

[Itnetlolor]

This made me rage today. I'm definitely never going to read gawker again.

I'm going to go crawl into a hole and pretend that people aren't that awful for once.

That was quick and inevitable, is all I have to say. Ever since I saw the Coca-Cola ad about making the world a better place. In fact, the whole Superbowl message being "Be Good" becoming a form of weaponized hate instead, I saw that coming a mile away. It's as I stated before, we've become a world of hate.

Needless to say, I'm not shocked it happened. This was beyond predictable.

Now I wonder, if good can broadcast hate, then can we hatefully be good? You know, like a double-negative. They somehow reversed the polarity of a good message, so why can't we do that against hatred? Fire v Fire.

EDIT:
Then again, it could also be some teen/sad excuse of an adult that just loves to be a jackass, and had some free time to watch the world burn.

EDIT EDIT:
We need some ideas of raging love. A means of sounding like a bunch of hateful bigots with a message of love as the primary message, regardless how it's transmitted; or something. Like death metal with a holy backing in it's message, or something. I dunno. That's maybe too obvious. Troll with good intentions and the like. We need ideas. How can you be the most hated person for being good? ...Christ can be an example to play from? That might be too obvious an angle as well, I guess.

Basically, we need to find a way to do the reverse of this; make bad messages always broadcast good, whether be their intent or not; like they do with good, forcing them into bad. This is more difficult than it sounds even trying to explain what I'm trying to get across.

EDIT EDIT EDIT:
Forced celebrity status on hateful people (making them into ultra-good people; regardless, no matter how monstrous they are. Intentionally.). Give them unwanted fame, and plague them with it so badly, they'll be demotivated from it, as to not attract more unwanted attention. Make evil corporations donate their savings into charity, against their will, and have it disadvantage them in the process in a way they can't fight against it, lest they reveal themselves for the monsters they truly are (mind you, they donate so much it'll hit them so hard they'll have to sell off parts of their company, or file for bankruptcy, requiring them to somehow get their money back; go legit, or go broke. Have fun.). Of course, I'm falling into comical territory with this, but you get the gist.

[Solifuge]

This made me rage today. I'm definitely never going to read gawker again.

I responded differently. Sure, Hitler anything remains a trigger-point, bridging parody and attrocity in a way that understandably sets people off. Even so, I thought it was a clever subversion, and funny because of the contrast between Hitler and ASCII puppies. I wished we lived in a world that could just laugh at the subversion, and appreciate how disempowering it is to such a colossal message of racial hatred as Mein Kampf to turn it into a joke. Instead, Coke pulled the whole campaign and pouted, preventing other people from using it as intended, Gawkers joke was turned into ill-spirited Trolling, and no one wins.

Sometimes people need to be able to take a joke as intended, laugh about it or chastise someone for their poor taste, and carry on.

[nenjin]

Yeah, I thought it was a clever subversion of the ad campaign on it as well. Or maybe a subtle commentary on their algorithm. Sure it was a little troll-y, but what on the internet that is lulz worthy isn't to some degree?

So to me, the outrage seems a little misplaced.

[hector13]

Yeah, I thought it was a clever subversion of the ad campaign on it as well. Or maybe a subtle commentary on their algorithm. Sure it was a little troll-y, but what on the internet that is lulz worthy isn't to some degree?

So to me, the outrage seems a little misplaced.

+1

Equally so, actually employing someone to keep an eye on the Twitter account would have been a good idea in the first place.

[Redzephyr01]

Gawker called coke neo-nazis because of it. They literally did it to create controversy so they could make money. As a Jew, I am extremely offended by them using the deaths of millions of my people to create controversy so they could make money off of it. I have relatives who died in the holocaust, so pardon me for being angry that someone is using it to make money.

[hector13]

Gawker called coke neo-nazis because of it. They literally did it to create controversy so they could make money. As a Jew, I am extremely offended by them using the deaths of millions of my people to create controversy so they could make money off of it. I have relatives who died in the holocaust, so pardon me for being angry that someone is using it to make money.

They're not using the deaths of millions of your people, they're making fun of a multinational corporation attempting to look good through happy advertising. Coke won't make you any happier if you buy it.

Like I said, if they were actually monitoring the account, they could have caught it, made a joke about it, and got on with it. But they didn't, they picked up their ball and buggered off back home with it, because they can't take a joke.

Gawker aren't really any better than Coke if they're courting this controversy to cash-in, but they're by no means making fun of the Holocaust.